Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact AnalysisA & F ENGINEERING CO., LLC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ d#// ~:, ~' ~0~ William J. Fehribach, P.E. President Steven J. Fehribach, P.E. Vice President 8365 Keystone Crossing, Suite 201 Indianapolis, In 46240 (317) 202-0864 fax (317) 202-0908 www.af-eng.com MEMORANDUM DATE: 06-15-04 TO' FROM: Blair Carmosino Duke Construction CC: John Dobosiewizc City of Carmel R. Matt Brown, P.E. Redistribution / Removal of Proposed Accesses Traffic Impact Analysis' Walnut Creek Marketplace Michigan Road: Carmel, IN INTRODUCTION & SCOPE Per the request of the City of Carmel, A&F Engineering has completed a supplemental traffic analysis regarding the proposed Walnut Creek development that would be located along Michigan Road between 99th Street and 106th Street in Carmel. A Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed development was completed in May 2004. This analysis analyzed the traffic impacts that wbuld result due to the proposed development at the following intersections: Michigan Road & 96th Street · Michigan Road & Retail Parkway · Michigan Road & 106th Street In addition, three proposed access points to the proposed site were assumed and a proposed Commerce Drive connection to 96t~ Street was considered. A review of this study by the City of Carmel produced comments regarding two main issues. These issues included: o What effect will the Commerce Drive extension have on the redistribution of existing traffic volumes along Michigan Road (including the existing users of Target)? Will a traffic signal be needed at 96th Street and Commerce Drive when the extension is constructed? o Could the Walnut Creek retail development be served by only Retail Parkway and Commerce Drive? (i.e. Would the existing intersection of Michigan Road and Retail Parkway operate efficiently if Walnut Creek had no other direct access to Michigan Road?) Based on these two comments, A&F Engineering completed a supplemental analysis. The scope of this analysis was as follows: First, to redistribute existing traffic (including existing users of the Target site) to Commerce Drive assuming that an extension would be constructed that would connect 96th Street to 106th Street via Commerce Drive. Second, to assign and distribute the traffic volumes that could be generated by the development of vacant land that currently exists near the proposed Walnut Creek site. Third, to assign and distribute the generated traffic volumes to and from the proposed Walnut Creek development. Fourth, to complete a capacity analysis and level of service analysis at each of the study intersections based on the following traffic sc. enarios' Scenario 1 -Existing Traffic Volumes + Redistributed Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes Scenario 2- Projected Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Redistributed Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Traffic Volumes REDISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC In order to determine the traffic impact of the proposed Commerce Drive extension, the existing traffic volumes must first be redistributed. The proposed Commerce Drive extension would connect 96th Street to 106th Street. Therefore, a portion of the existing traffic could use this connection to by-pass Michigan Road. In addition, vehicles wishing to enter Target from the southeast would have the opportunity to travel north on Commerce Drive from 96th Street to enter Target. Therefore, a redistribution of existing traffic volumes was completed using traffic data collected at the study intersections, at the Target driveways and traffic counts taken at 96th Street and Shelborne Road and 106th Street & Shelborne Road. The total redistribution of the existing background and existing Target traffic volumes is shown on Figure 2. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows these redistributed traffic volumes for the year 2014. DESCRIPTION OF NEAR-BY VACANT LAND Vacant land that would utilize Retail Parkway and Commerce Drive currently exists near the Walnut Creek site. The location of these sites is shown on Figure 1 and Table 1 is a trip generation summary for the land uses that will most likely occupy this vacant land. Trip Generation~ report was used to calculate the number of trips that will be generated by the near-by vacant land. TABLE 1 - GENERATED TRIPS FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION GENERATED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM PARCEL LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT 1 High Turnover 932 5,000 SF 30 28 33 21 Restaurant 2 Retail 820 45,000 SF 59 38 177 192 3 General Office 710 70,000 SF 124 17 27 130 Finally, pass-by and internal trip generation reductions are applied to the vacant land trip generation data. These reductions are based on the formulae published within the ITE Trip Generation Handbook2 and the resulting net trips are shown in Table 2. I Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition, 2003. 2 Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. TABLE 2- INTERNAL TRIP AND PASS-BY TRIP REDUCTIONS FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION ' GENERATED TRIPS ITE AM AM PM PM PARCEL LAND USE CODE SIZE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT 1 Restaurant 932 5,000 SF 30 28 33 21 Restaurant Internal Trips 6 6 7 4 Restaurant External Trips 24 ....22 26 17 2 } Retail I 820 I 45,000SF 59 38 177 192 Retail Internal Trips 6 6 4 7 Retail External Trips 53 32 173 185 Retail Non Pass-By External Trips (50.9%) 27 16 88 94 Retail Pass-By External Trips (49.1%) 26 16 85 91 ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED TRAFFIC FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND & WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT The volume of traffic that will enter and exit the near-by vacant land and the Walnut Creek site is assigned to each of the study area intersections. Using the traffic volume data collected for this analysis, traffic to and from the sites has been assigned to the proposed driveways and to the public street system that will be serving the site. To determine the amount of traffic that will be added to the public roadway system, the generated traffic volumes must be distributed by direction to the public roadways at their intersection with the access drives. For the vacant land and Walnut Creek site, the distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns and the assignment of generated traffic. In order to justify the need for a signalized access into the Walnut Creek site, two different assignment and distribution scenarios were used for the generated traffic of the Walnut Creek development. The first, scenario assumed that the existing signalized access at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway would be maintained and no new direct access would be allowed onto Michigan Road. The second scenario assumed that a second signal would be provided at the proposed Walnut Creek development main access drive. The assignment and distribution of the generated traffic volumes for the near-by vacant land and Walnut Creek development are shown on figures at the end of this document. GENERATED TRIPS ADDED TO THE STREET SYSTEM Generated traffic volumes that can be expected from the vacant land and the proposed Walnut Creek development have been prepared at each of the study area intersections. These generated traffic volumes were calculated using the trip generation data and the assignment and distribution scenarios described earlier in this report. A figure included at the back of this memo summarizes the generated traffic volumes for the near-by vacant land. Figures are also included that summarize the generated traffic volumes for the proposed Walnut Creek development considering each scenario. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The "efficiency" of an intersection is based on its ability to accommodate the traffic volumes that approach the intersection. It is defined by the Level-of-Service (LOS) of the intersection. The LOS is determined by a series of calculations commonly called a "capacity analysis". Input data into a capacity analysis include traffic volumes, intersection geometry, number and use of lanes and, in the case of signalized intersections, traffic signal timing. To determine the LOS at each of the study intersections, a capacity analysis has been made using the recognized computer program Synchro~. This program allows multiple intersections to be analyzed and optimized using the capacity calculation methods outlined within the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)4. PROGRESSION ANALYSIS Progression is maintained when a platoon of vehicles can travel along a segment of a major roadway without having to stop at each intersection. A warrant analysis performed in the May 2004 study has shown that when the traffic from the Walnut Creek development is added to the roadway network, a traffic signal will be warranted at Walnut Creek's main access and Michigan Road with or without the proposed Commerce Drive extension. Therefore, this traffic signal was considered and analyzed as part of a coordinated signal system that included the traffic signals at 96th Street, Retail Parkway and 106th Street. The recognized computer program Synchro was used to analyze the study intersections as a coordinated system. Synchro 6.0, Trafficware, 2003. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000. CAPACITY ANALYSIS SCENARIOS To evaluate the traffic impact on the public street system, the traffic volumes from each of the various parts must be added together to form a series of scenarios that can be analyzed. The analysis of these scenarios determines the adequacy of the existing roadway system. From the analysis, recommendations can be made to improve the public street system so it will accommodate the increased traffic volumes. An analysis has been made for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour for each of the study intersections for each of the following scenarios' Scenario 1' Existing Traffic Volumes + Redistributed Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 9A is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour with no signalized access for Walnut Creek. Figure 9B is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour with signalized access for Walnut Creek. Scenario 2' Year 2014 Traffic Volumes + Redistributed Traffic Volumes + Vacant Land Traffic Volumes + Proposed Development Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 10A is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour with no signalized access for Walnut Creek. Figure 10B is a summary of these traffic volumes at the study intersections for the peak hour with signalized access for Walnut Creek. The requested analyses have been completed considering both scenarios. The tables that are included in this report are a summary of the results of the level of service analyses and are identified as follows' Table 3- Michigan Road & 96th Street Table 4- Michigan Road & 106th Street Table 5 - Michigan Road & Retail Parkway Table 6 - Michigan Road & Proposed Walnut Creek Signalized Access TABLE 3 - MICHIGAN Ro~d9 & 96TM STREET AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach C C C D D D Southbound Approach D D D E E D . Eastbound Approach C C C D D D Westbound Approach D D D E E E Intersection C C C E E E PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach D E E F F F Southbound Approach C C C D D D Eastbound Approach F E E F F F Westbound Approach F E E F F F Intersection E D D F F F Description of Scenarios Scenario 1: Sum of Existing Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Scenario2: Sum of Year 2014 Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Notes All scenarios analyzed this intersection with the existing traffic signal control and the existing intersection geometrics. Also, all scenarios included this intersection as part of a coordinated signal system. Scenarios lA and 2A were analyzed with the following conditions: · The existing intersection geometrics at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios lB and 2B were analyzed with the following conditions: · The addition of a westbound left-turn lane along Retail Parkway at the intersection of Michigan Road. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios 1C and 2C were analyzed with the fol]owing conditions: · The existing intersection geometrics at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway. · The addition of the proposed Walnut Creek signalized access. TABLE 4- MICHIGAN ROAD & 106TM STREET AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach A A A C B C Southbound Approach C C C D D C Eastbound Approach C C C E E E Westbound Approach C C C D D D Intersection B B B D D D PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach A B B B C C Southbound Approach C C C D D D Eastbound Approach E D D F F F Westbound Approach D C C E E E Intersection C C C D D D Description of Scenarios Scenario 1: Sum of Existing Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Scenario2: Sum of Year 2014 Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Notes INDOT has future plans to begin reconstructing this intersection within the year 2005 in conjunction with the widening of Michigan Road. Therefore, all scenarios analyzed this intersection with the existing traffic signal control and the following intersection geometrics as planned by INDOT: Northbound: One left-mm lane, two through lanes, one fight-mm lane Southbound: One left-turn lane, two through lanes, one fight-mm lane Eastbound: One left-mm lane, one shared through/right-turn lane Westbound: One left-turn lane, one through lane, one fight-mm lane Also, all scenarios included this intersection as part of a coordinated signal system. Scenarios lA and 2A were analyzed with the following conditions: · The existing intersection geometrics at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios lB and 2B were analyzed with the following conditions: · The addition of a westbound left-turn lane along Retail Parkway at the intersection of Michigan Road. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios lC and 2C were analyzed with the following conditions: · The existing intersection geometrics at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway. · The addition of the proposed Walnut Creek signalized access. TABLE 5 - MICHIGAN ROAD & RETAIL PARKWAY AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach A A A A A A ,, Southbound Approach A A A A A A Eastbound Approach D D D E E E Westbound Approach D D D D E E ,, Intersection A A A A A A PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT SCENARIO lA lB lC 2A 2B 2C Northbound Approach D C A F C A Southbound Approach D C B E C B Eastbound Approach E E E F E E Westbound Approach D D D D D E Intersection D C B F C B Description of Scenarios Scenario 1' Sum of Existing Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Scenario 2: Sum of Year 2014 Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Notes All scenarios analyzed this intersection with the existing traffic signal control. scenarios included this intersection as part of a coordinated signal system. Also, all Scenarios lA and 2A were analyzed with the following conditions' · The existing geometrics at this intersection. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios lB and 2B were analyzed with the following conditions: · The addition of a westbound left-turn lane along Retail Parkway at this intersection. · No signalized access for the Walnut Creek development. Scenarios 1C and 2C were analyzed with the following conditions' · The existing geometrics at this intersection. · The addition of the proposed Walnut Creek signalized access. TABLE 6 - MICHIGAN ROAD & PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK SIGNALIZED ACCESS AM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Intersection SCENARIO 1 A SCENARIO 2 B A A D E D A E A PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Intersection SCENARIO 1 B SCENARIO 2 B B C D E D B E C Description of Scenarios Scenario 1' Sum of Existing Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Scenario 2' Sum of Year 2014 Volumes, Redistributed Volumes, Proposed Walnut Creek Development and Near-by Vacant Land (With Commerce Drive Extension) Notes · Both scenarios analyzed this intersection with the proposed traffic signal control and the proposed intersection geometrics that include the following' 1. The addition of a northbound right-turn lane along Michigan Road. A recovery taper is also proposed at the access drive. 2. An exclusive southbound left-turn along Michigan Road 3. The proposed access constructed with two left-turn lanes and a shared through/right-turn lane for outbound traffic and ,at least one lane for inbound traffic. · Both scenarios included this intersection as part of a coordinated signal system. 10 CONCLUSIONS Based on the redistribution of the existing traffic, the trip generation data, the assignment and distribution of the generated volumes and the capacity analysis results, the following conclusions are made' o The existing intersection configuration at Michigan Road and Retail Parkway is projected to operate at LOS F when the Year 2014 redistributed traffic volumes, the vacant land traffic volumes and the proposed Walnut Creek traffic volumes are added to the roadway network. o The eastbound approach at the intersection of Michigan Road and Retail Parkway currently experiences low traffic volumes during most of the day. Therefore, this intersection essentially operates as a 3-way intersection during these periods. However, if land use changes or land development on the west side of Michigan Road were to generate additional traffic at this intersection, a significant decrease in traffic operations could occur due to traffic signal timing increases needed to serve eastbound and westbound traffic. ge A signalized access for the Walnut Creek development would eliminate future delays and provide a significant amount of future capacity at the Retail Parkway traffic signal when future traffic is added to the roadway network. , Se The projected peak hour traffic volumes at Retail Parkway and Michigan Road would be significantly reduced if a traffic signal were installed for the proposed Walnut Creek development. It is projected that this decrease would be approximately 160 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 714 vehicles in the PM peak hour. Acceptable levels of service could be maintained at the intersection of Michigan Road and the proposed Walnut Creek Access if a traffic signal was installed. o Progression could be maintained along Michigan Road if the signal for Walnut Creek development was installed. 11 , Based on the projected traffic volumes and the future extension of Commerce Drive, it is unlikely that traffic signal warrants would be met in the short term at the intersection of 96th Street and Commerce Drive. However, it is our recommendation that this intersection would be continually monitored over time as traffic is generated from the future development of near-by land. 12 106TH ST. ~ EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TARGET SITE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS 98TH ST. '~ 96TH ST. EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL /-465 LAND USE LEGEND PARCEL I LAND USE lITE CODEI SIZE VACANT LAND RESTAURANT 952 5,000 SF RETAIL 820 45,000 SF OFFICE 710 70,000 SF EXISTING FIGURE I AREA MAP DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN ©A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ]3 D6TH ST. ~ (45) (70) 20 -~ EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND GO ~7~UR (00) = P.,. PE,~< HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE (ss) 44 ~ (255) ~29 ~ (442) 259 98TH ST. 96TH ST. ~44) 1-465 DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN FIGURE 2 TOTAL REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION 14 ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ~O~TH ST. -( F (91) 26 272) 98 EXISTING TARGET SITE '\ LEGEND GO ~UR * : NEGLIGIBLE / (0~) s (332) 16a ~ (575) 337 ~ 98TH S . ' 96TH ST. DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN ' iI II'~T I III II '1 IIII 'l'l"r[I 1-465 ~E 3 REDISTRIBUTED YEAR 2014 TRAFFIC VOLUMES NOTE= THESE VOLUMES DO NOT INCLUDE THE GENERATED TRAFFIC FROM THE PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT OR VACANT LAND ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" i] i[ i'll 15 106TH ST. .-~ ~--20% (18%) (4%) 2% (22%) 23% 22% (23%) EXISTING T^RGET SITE LEGEND O0 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00)- P.M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE (31%) 98TH ST. ", (11%) 8% --~ 96TH ST. ~--23% (35%) DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN URE 4A ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION) ©A & r Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 16 I06TH ST. EXISTING TARGET SITE '\ LEGEND O0 - A.M. PEAK HOUR O0 = P~ PEAK HOUR = NEGLIGIBLE XX = INBOUND [xx] = OUTBOUND 98TH ST. '~ 96TH ST, DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN 1-465 FIGURE 4B ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ]? I ~ 21% 106TH ST. ~ 14% 14% ~ ,rTM 14% 13%--~ DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN EXISTING TARGET SITE J , LEGE-~ND-~J 25% ~(x ~,,,,..' 98TH ST. ,) 96TH ST. 4-.39% I-4~5 URE 5A ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITHOUT PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ]8 I06TH ST. ~ '% :ss% (~o%) ~, (,) \ ,r67~ (,~o~.' EXISTING TARGET SITE 'N L.__EG~.E N~D O0 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR 98TH ST. ~] 96TH ST. o DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN /-4~5 URE 5B ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED PAS S-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITHOUT PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A &: F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ]9  21% 106TH ST. ~ EXISTING TARGET SITE i , LEGE_N~D / 13%--~ ~ ,.,.. ~ 25% 98TH ST. "~ 96TH ST. ~--39% o 0 DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN /-465 URE 6A ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED NON PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITH PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Righfs Reserved" 20 106 TH ST~ EXISTINO TARGET SITE LEGEND 00 = A,bt. PEAK HOUR O0 = P~M PEAK HOUR * = NEOLIOIBLE XX = iNBOUND [XX] = OUTBOUND 98TH ST. "~ 96TH ST. DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN 21 FIGURE 6B ASSIGNMENT & DISTRIBUTION OF GENERATED PASS-BY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WiTH PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Righfs Reserved" 106TH ST. (~6) ~4 -~' DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN 12 (56) EXISTING TARGET SITE ILEGEND oo _:--~.;-. -~--~u, (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR 98TH ST. ") ~ 96TH ST. FIGURE 7 TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION) 22 ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" /06TH ST. 7 (~oo) 20) 6-~ EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND , O0 = A.M. PEAK HOUR ~ (00) - P.M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN RE 8 TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITHOUT PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) (DA & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Righfs Reserved" 23 IO6TH ST. 17 (100) 120) 6"~ EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND O0 - A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE ~ 26 (9: (s6) 25 ..~ DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN (179) $~~~~4~(165) 98TH ST. ") ~ 96TH ST. !-465 RE 9 TOTAL GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITH PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 24 106TH ST. (70) 20 -~ (~) 77 ,-~ (~eo) 7s "4, 58 (108) 131 (134) 298 (1 (~69) ~73 68 (~) EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND O0 : A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.I~. PEAK HOUR * : NEGLIGIBLE (~BT) 8~ -~ (255) 129 ~ (442) 259 ~ DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN 98TH ST. ", 96TH ST. ~"' 90 (1 191 (94) 7:53 (,588) 1-465 RE 1OA SUM OF EXISTING VOLUMES, REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES, PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT AND NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITHOUT PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) (DA & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 25 x o f06TH ST. (70) 20 -.~ 212) 77 ~ (160) 7,5 "~ ,58 (108) 151 (134) 298 (185) (169) 17,3 68 (241) EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND 00 = A.M. PEAK HOUR (00) = P.U. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE (187) 83 -~ (255) 129 --~ (442) 259 ~ DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN (330) 16§~,,'~.~43 (3§2) 98TH SX ') ~ 96TH ST. ~'-90 (104) '.<--" 191 ~.- 733 (388) 1-465 RE lOB SUM OF EXISTING VOLUMES, REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES, PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT AND NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITH PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 26 o x L~ .~. 106TH ST. (91) 26''~ (275) 100 ~ 75 (139) 170 (17.3) (183) 205 80 (267) EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND GO 7---Z.~A~U, (00) : P.M. PEAK HOUR \\ r (213) 96 -~ (332) 168 --'~ 337 't. ~o~ ( -<,-,, 248 (122) DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN ~ ~"~155 (378) (344) 197 %~,~,~. 98TH ST. ' 96TH ST. /-465 11A SUM OF YEAR 2014 VOLUMES, REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES, PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT AND NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITHOUT PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 27 /06TH ST. /275) 100 ~ '~> ~-,~ 75 (159) 170 (175 ~8~ (225 (213) 96 J~ (332) 168 ~ (5; ,) 337 -~ (~83) 2os 80 (267) EXISTING TARGET SITE j LEGEND I oo ;-~.'~. -'~'-'~u~ I (00) = P.M. PEAK HOUR DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN "~ 108 (106) ~ 248 (122) ~'" 955 * (344) 197~,~5 ($78) 98TH ST. "' 96TH ST. 1-465 E 11B SUM OF YEAR 2014 VOLUMES, REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES, PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK DEVELOPMENT AND NEAR-BY VACANT LAND (WITH COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION AND WITH PROPOSED SIGNALIZED ACCESS) ©A & F' Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" 28 I06TH ST. (70) 20 '-~ ) 74 -...~ (139) 68 ~ e,.5~ (9, ~0 (~) 379 (173) (88) 45 {[252) 128 '--~ (442) 259 ~,. t87 187 (95 642 (354) DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND oo ;--~..-7-~A~U~ (00) '- P.M. PEAK HOUR 98TH ST. 96TH ST. 1-465 FIGURE A EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (DA & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved" ~O~TH ST~ (~o) ~o ~ 20?) ?~ --~ 039) 68 -~ EXISTING TARGET SITE \\ \\ \ _, LEGEND (oo) = ,.~. ~E~, .our * = NEGLIGIBLE (88) 45J' (252) 128-~ (442) 259-~, 187 98TH ST. 96TH ST. ~-465 FIGURE B DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EXISTING TARGET SITE DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 J "ALL Righfs Rese~_ed~ , ,, I06TH ST. (45) ~06~ EXISTING TARGET SITE LEGEND oo ~~3UR (00) = P,M. PEAK HOUR * = NEGLIGIBLE (255) 129~ (442) 259.-,~ 98TH ST. 96TH ST. DUKE CONSTRUCTION CARMEL, IN FIGURE /-465 C REDISTRIBUTED BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO COMMERCE DRIVE EXTENSION ©A & F Engineering Co., LLC 2004 "ALL Rights Reserved'i